User talk:Andrevan

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrevan.

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

Andre🚐's Talk ☎️ Page Archive 📇 Index
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64

☕ Threads archived by ClueBot III after 72h ☕

Contentious topics awareness

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him!

Unblocked

I have unblocked you following your successful appeal but please do read the email I sent you. Welcome back, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant surprise on this Thursday afternoon. I feel a warm rush and a tingling sensation. Though that may be unrelated. Thanks again, best wishes & hope all is well to you and the committee. Andre🚐 19:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Welcome back. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, everyone. It's cool to be welcomed back. Andre🚐 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Man in a Van! Great to see you back! Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome back. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A warm welcome is always appreciated. I'm already off to editing. The Wikipediholic's fix has relief, but also, where'd the day go? Cheers! Enjoy, and thanks! Andre🚐 23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! At Wikipedians by number of edits, I checked yesterday, you were ahead of me by only a few edits, and I assumed since you are blocked, I'll leave you far behind. Today got a shock, but a good one! Jay 💬 15:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yeah thanks... I might have created 6 or 7 new articles yesterday. That's what happens when all those edits are bottled up in my head for months with no outlet I guess. Andre🚐 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised to see your username not struckthrough looking at an old conversation! Welcome back. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always great to see the old names around :-) Andre🚐 03:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate everyone welcoming me back with such a friendly and happy series of messages. It really does mean a lot! I appreciate y'all, and I hope you are having a great summer! Andre🚐 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cheesecake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coffee cake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Please don't remove sourced content as you did here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source isn't reliable, as it's the Turkish Andalou Agency. WP:RSN archives show that it should be ~~deprecated~~ generally unreliable for politics, see WP:ANADOLU. Andre🚐 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Andre🚐 00:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you resmoved the content again.

WP:ANADOLU reads "The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact." Since it is only being cited here for an uncontroversial statement of fact, the content you removed should be restored. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, please look again. In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. It's one box down from the general topics. The statement is prima facie political and controversial. Andre🚐 02:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I restored the content with a better source. Next time instead of removing such content please consider either finding a better source for the content or adding a 'better source needed' tag. Also a talk page entry accompanying such a removal would have been good as well, just for visibility and review so your removal doesn't slip through the cracks and go unseen.

Additionally, regarding "the statement is prima facie political and controversial" - Actually Anadolu is only reporting that "person x made political statement y", so it's just a simple fact being presented. Something very different from Anadolu making political statement y in its own voice. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, restoring with a better source is fine, thanks. Leaving this note here and discussion here are also all good in my book, too. There are certain situations where I do think changing it to a CN tag or starting a talk discussion would be appropriate, and I appreciate your note on that, but it's not required in all cases, and not really a Wikipedia norm. Things are going to slip through the cracks, as no one person or group of people can review all recent changes and WP:BOLDness is part of how things work here, but they're available in the page history. While I'm not exactly doing a full WP:BEFORE on every statement I removed, that's because these articles are already bloated and long and I think the cuts are probably helpful on the whole. WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply to unsourced material or material whose source would be categorically unreliable in that context.

As far as this case goes, while it is moot and I appreciate you finding a better source, I disagree that a report about a political figure making political statements is not political, and I think very many such statements are quite controversial indeed, so I can't agree with your estimation that it matters particularly whether Andalou was amplifying someone's controversial politics or simply having them. GUNREL should neatly give me the cover to remove this content, and your restoration is also fine. Andre🚐 04:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so it's just a simple fact being presented It is moot in this case, but WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant here. Wikipedia is supposed to include not every true thing ("person x made political statement y") but only the relevant ones. Person x could be a wackjob nobody listens to except other wackjobs. Then, a wackjob source would be an entryway into Wikipedia for crazy ideas. Since you found a reliable source, that does not apply here, but so it's just a simple fact being presented was still not valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]